Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

Those Colossal, Recklessly Irresponsible $2 Trillion Errors

It’s laugh-out-loud funny to hear the Obama administration’s all out assault on S&P’s math skills. According to the administration, if the downgrade in America’s credit rating is not the fault of the Tea Party (apparently for demanding the very spending cuts the political class’s refusal to make prompted the downgrade), it must be due to what the administration calls S&P’s “colossal” $2 trillion error — indicative, Treasury’s Turbo Tim Geithner told NBC News, of the rating agency’s “stunning lack of knowledge about basic U.S. fiscal budget math.” It couldn’t possibly be President Obama’s outer-worldly spending spree, right? It couldn’t possibly be that we are at the point of borrowing because we can’t otherwise make the interest payments on our prior borrowing.

This jogged my memory. So I searched through NRO’s collection of Obama administration Friday Night Bad News Dumps until I found this little ditty, from nearly two years ago. On a sleepy late August Friday in 2009, after the president and his family had already skipped town for their Martha’s Vineyard vacation, the administration quietly announced that it had made a wee mistake in calculating deficit projections over the next ten years. Consequently, the White House Office of Management and Budget was revising its debt totals from about $7 trillion to about $9 trillion — wouldn’t you know it: a $2 trillion error that some of us thought was downright colossal.

The White House confession of error in 2009 brought President Obama into line with the Congressional Budget Office, which had been projecting a $9.1 trillion deficit over that same timeframe. Interestingly, it is S&P’s departure from the CBO’s projections that now causes the Obama administration to frame S&P as numbskulls.

Yet, as S&P has explained, unlike the administration and the CBO, it focuses on a three-to-five year window. S&P finds that this timeframe, which is more in the control of the current Congress and president, is a more reliable predictor of financial health than illusory ten-year forecasts. In the tighter window, the difference between S&P and the CBO was not that great — a difference of $345 billion, not $2 trillion, and one which, accepting the CBO’s projection, would still leave the U.S. at a dangerously high debt-to-GDP ratio. (As the Wall Street Journal’s editorial notes this morning, debt-to-GDP has shot up over 40 percent since Obama took office.) Basically, S&P is saying the debt ceiling deal with its backloaded cuts that are unlikely ever to happen is, on any accounting, unserious. We opponents of the deal have been saying that all along. It was thus interesting to find the Journal’s editors — supporters of the deal — sounding very much like hobbits this morning:

The Obama Administration’s attempt to discredit S&P only makes the U.S. look worse—like the Europeans who also want to blame the raters for noticing the obvious. Treasury officials and chief White House economic adviser Gene Sperling denounced S&P for relying on a Congressional Budget Office scenario that overestimated the U.S. discretionary spending baseline by $300 billion through 2015 and $2 trillion through 2021. But even adjusting for that $2 trillion would only reduce U.S. publicly held debt to 85% or so of GDP—still dangerously high. And that assumes that recently agreed upon spending caps are sustained over a decade, something which rarely happens. [My italics.] 

In any event, since so much is being made by the administration of CBO’s prowess at “basic U.S. fiscal budget math” in arriving at ten-year forecasts, thanks are in order to Zero Hedge, which dug out CBO’s 2001 forecast of where we’d be today. According to CBO, we were going to be sitting pretty: The debt would essentially be paid off (except for holders of bonds that hadn’t matured yet), the debt-to-GDP ratio would be a tiny 4.8%, Treasury would be in the black — holding $2.4 trillion more in uncommitted funds than it owed in debt obligations, and Leviathan would be collecting 2011 budget surplus of $889 billion!

I guess they were a tad off. But not to worry, I’m sure they’ve got 2021 pegged to the penny.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   39

EXPAND  

John Q.
   08/08/11 11:44

Was that before the Bush tax cuts and Medicare Part D?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/08/11 11:48

You mean, the laws enacted by the Democratic-controlled Congress?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/08/11 11:58

Yes, I think he means the laws enacted by the Democratic-controlled Congress.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/08/11 12:25

Well, we don't know what time frame to which you refer on the "Bush Tax Cuts".

Are you referring to when Obama and the Dem Senate extended them recently?

Or, are you in general seeking to claim -- like a five year old -- that Obama's innocent of having ANYTHING to do with a DEBT crisis?

My apologies to five year olds. I didn't mean to insult them.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
John Q.
   08/08/11 11:47

If Republicans are so intent on cutting back entitlements and spending, why don't they offer to end the Medicare Part D entitlement they passed back in 2003? It was never funded, costs almost a trillion dollars over 10 years and would be a major step towards rolling back entitlements and spending. What other single cut could achieve that?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/08/11 11:54
   08/08/11 12:10

Delicious riposte.

Touché

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 Chas
   08/08/11 12:08

you honestly think dems would let them cut that? teddy was critical of it because it wasnt big enough! but im all for cutting it right out and the majority of conservatives agree. and we're ready to cut even more, are you? im betting not, you just had to try and pivot things to bush, who has not been in the white hosue in 3 years. go away little troll

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/08/11 12:20

Well, it's 40% under budget, because it encourages the consumer to control costs.

Here is what I'll agree to: We'll re-model the ENTIRE Medicare system after Part D, relying on the private sector to contain costs through HSAs and other mechanisms.

ONCE (and not a moment before) Medicare is solvent AND enough time has elapsed for people to have saved enough to afford prescription drugs out-of-pocket, THEN we can terminate Part D.

But notice -- only leftists are proposing that we END entitlements. And they propose to end only the ones that actually contain costs.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
John Q.
   08/08/11 12:50

Under budget? It was never funded through the budget. Nice try. Thanks for admitting that Republicans are all talk, no action on entitlements.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/08/11 13:49

Name me an entitlement. I'm in favor of ending it.

Dog food and home appendectomy kits for everyone!*

(*If that's where your freely chosen life decisions have led you.)

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/10/11 23:45

Want to know the single reason why it's under forecast?

Walmart.

Seriously.

The couple hundred $4 generic scripts that they announced, along with the lists of expensive brand name drugs that those cheap scripts could replace, gave seniors ways talk to their doctors so they could stay out of the cost "doughnut hole" and keep the costs down for everyone.

Of course Walmart isn't the only pharmacy selling $4 scripts today. But they certainly lead the way.

Free enterprise to the rescue! Again...

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/08/11 13:21

Many conservatives opposed, and still oppose, Bush's prescription drug program. I'm sure it will be on the table.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
buku.banzai
   08/09/11 19:06

That's a great idea! Why don't we end Medicare part D and Obamacare, two new entitlements that just simply can't be afforded.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/08/11 11:49

Dont' worry Andrew, according to Michael Moore; "America is not broke."

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Interested Observer
   08/08/11 12:19

And you say it is? The US is by far the wealthiest country in a period of low taxation...

What measures are you using when you suggest that America is broke?

This seems to me one of the less thoughtful bumpersticker mantras being repeated in the VRWC channels.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/08/11 12:26

Umm, what part of Debt > 100% GDP do you fail to understand?

It's like saying "I can't be broke, I still have checks left!"

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/08/11 12:27

IO - - that was meant to be read "tongue in cheek." Unfortunately, I forgot to add the irony font.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Interested Observer
   08/08/11 12:58

Ahh. I misinterpreted the quotes. They should have been air quotes but they don't really have their own symbol on the keyboard.

And as for the VRWC comment also being a bumpersticker slogan... point well taken.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   08/08/11 12:29

"VRWC channels" is the height of bumper stickerdom. Someone who actually is interested and observant would realize this.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact